I disagree there. The phrase obvious meaning is the same as in Super Jump, you can declare other Short Skills in combination with a skill that normally doesn't allow for such. As I mentioned before, that bullet point is exactly the same in both Super Jump and Climbing Plus, thus basing your argument there points to Super Jump being a legal declaration. Leaving that aside, Jump is a legal order selection for Fury Orders, meaning you can be forced to do a Jump Order of the special kind Super Jump troopers can declare (adding both movement values)...
A. Just accept that C+ and Super-jump are played differently. You can climb as part of a Move and Move while on vertical surfaces; you can neither Jump as part of a Move nor Move unsupported. It's dull, but it's been widely established and is the consensus. B. An Impetuous trooper can't be forced to Jump unless he "enters an area of Special Terrain that impairs his Movement or forces him to declare Jump or Climb in order to keep moving." This is generally considered to be triggered by 'B2B with the edge of a wall'. Derp, I phrased that the wrong way around. It's actually an Impetuous trooper can opt to "move a distance shorter than the maximum only if he reaches base contact with an enemy, or if he enters an area of Special Terrain that impairs his Movement or forces him to declare Jump or Climb in order to keep moving", ie he can move to the edge of building prior to being forced to Jump. Practically it means that RAW you can't force an Impetuous model to jump in an order they're not B2B with the obstructing piece of terrain. BUT the way it's played is that: If you are Impetuous and have Super-jump you must Short Skill jump if that's the fastest way to get to the nearest enemy model, but you can subsequently declare a second Short Skill (as per Move+BS Attack, Dodge etc). No, that's not RAW. But it's the best way to play it. There's an argument that you can force a long skill jump in situations where a 8" or 10" jump will be faster to reaching an enemy than a 4+4" or 6+4" jump. But these come up so rarely and a too difficult to judge by eye as to be a moot point: I'd just let my opponent do whatever he wanted.
@inane.imp say you're near the edge of a 3" tall buidling - jumping 4" would get you further than walking 1" to the edge of it. I think you have to declare jump in that case. In general the playerbase is frustratingly phobic of making the points-discount ability Impetuous an actual drawback.
Weve been over this and no you mat declare move as the first skill which locks you out of jump entirely As to the player base attitude on imp. In general i find they are just bad/reluctant to establish traps to bait them in people want them to die in their own without having to think about it. Thats not really the point
Yes. But the rules allow me to choose to move less than the maximum movement, so I do that instead. It's the one time that Impetuous movement is not entirely deterministic.
Frenzy states: A trooper using an Impetuous Order can move a distance shorter than the maximum only if he reaches base contact with an enemy, or if he enters an area of Special Terrain that impairs his Movement or forces him to declare Jump or Climb in order to keep moving But this combined with the previous bullet point which dictates that he always moves the entirety of his corresponding MOV value. it seems to be a way to explain that there are some restrictions to must moving the entirety. so the three restrictions that allow a move skill not to go the full MOV value: base contact with an enemy (this is obvious and requires no conversation about) he enters an area of Special Terrain (This would be something like difficult terrain, easy enough) forces him to declare Jump or Climb in order to keep moving So what does number 3 actually mean? I argue that it is when you cannot declare jump or climb that order and so must walk partially there first before being able to declare those skills. for instance you are 2 inches away from a 10 foot tower and there are no other enemies around. you must walk those 2 inches, and because of restriction 3, may/must be allowed to not moves the entirety of his corresponding MOV value. Others people believe it is when there is any distance of move that could get you the tiniest bit closer. However, after these bullet points is when it talks about jumping/climbing. the line is: The nearest enemy figure is the one that can be reached in the least number of Orders, even if that figure is not in LoF. Jump or Climb skills must be used if that would shorten the route. This line is why i think if you are within Move to jump off a building, you MUST. This line is after explaining how movement works. That is all the previous restrictions were, explaining how the move skill works, but you will not declare Move because Impetuous says, that after the move skill is mandatory that jump/climb will and must be used if path is shorter using them.
Read the previous threads where this has been discussed and debated in detail. This is not new and it's been settled the way I described. I seriously can't be bothered going over the same ground for a third time.
Yeah its all "may" guys get over it As imp said the rules specifically allow you to move less than as far as possible in this situation provided you can declare move
No, its not. I literally just quoted it. it says MUST and MANDATORY is so many places in that section. There is no settled. you may not understand how this forum works, but LITERALLY no one has any authority to settle anything. The best you can do is convince other people on a specific interpretation of how a ruling works. certain people are a good source of how people play this rule. but to say it is settled is a vast overstatement. and From what i just posted, both this time and all the times previous, no one has had a good argument on why jumping is optional when it LITERALLY says you MUST use it if it shortens the route. so no, it isn't settled, you may just not want to continue an argument that cannot be decided with no individuals with authority. Just like intent.
Dude just no Weve done this and im not finding you links and links and links when you could just google it. Shouting last doesnt make you right. Nor does ignoring half the rules. You then may underspecific situations move less than your maximum move (the rule you choose to ignore) You may therefore declare move as your first skill. If you declare move you cannot then declare the jump. However if you are at the edge of a ledge then yes you jump
I'd take the argument up that nothing is ever settled with PsychoticStorm, he certainly disagrees with you :) The standard for 'settled' used in most rules discussions (and how I use it here) is: 1. It's in an FAQ 2. Palanka or Hellois said so 3. IJW said so 4. Miracles happened and everyone agrees on what the rules actually mean This meets standard 3. Feel free to google it.
which rule i chose to ignore? base contact with an enemy (this is obvious and requires no conversation about) he enters an area of Special Terrain (This would be something like difficult terrain, easy enough) forces him to declare Jump or Climb in order to keep moving The third one? move and jump are not choices you realize in impetuous, right? you say you have a choice but no where are those two allowing a choice. Jump MUST be done if it could shorten your route. I realize what you are arguing, what position you state can be used to allow you to move the tiniest bit instead of jumping. I argue that position is wrong, if you are within your first mov value of the edge, you MUST jump as that will shorten your route. and i have read those threads, it is a bunch of that argument stating you can, but almost no explaining why that is a better interpretation than saying jump must be done. you state that you can, not why you can, and why that is a better understanding of the rules. now, as i brought up just moments ago, this thread is not here to rehash an argument that arises constantly with no official answer, but to ask the question of what the crap happens with impetuous and super jump. which i find to be a really interesting topic. I know how people play it and i imagine will continue playing it. but what does the rules say to do?
In the interest of not rehashing arguments, instead I'll just point you to the post where it was settled: yes it's not 'official' but it's as close as we ever get. So requiring 'official' answers is the functional equivalent of sticking your fingers in your ear and going 'nananananana I don't want to hear it'. As to your second question 'but what do the rules actually say': this is already explained in the thread (at least twice to my count). But in the interest of making it absofuckinglutely clear: I think we're done here?
Pretty much, and it is kind of a door situation. In summary; Rules say no, but you should probably talk to your group and agree that you can Impetuous Short-skill Jump.
IJW states this as well, so how is this settled? http://infinitytheforums.com/forum/...p-to-his-death/?do=findComment&comment=899606 also, in your post if IJW, he states that you could argue that its allowed, he didn't say what the correct answer there was. (sadly can't figure how to quote out of thread)
The post you quote was made in January 2017. After extended discussion of that topic he was in agreement with what is being said above. As you can see in the post that Imp quoted in Febuary 2018. So no, you are wrong and that is not IJWs stance on the matter
To say that the situation is settled and then have ijw have a different answer a year after the first one indicates there is no finite answer. Also, that post made earlier of ijw just said he believes you could argue that you could walk instead of jump if near but not btb to edge. He didnt say you could.
